NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[The Manticoran Empire]

Did any of the slaves in Confederate labour battalions rebel?

How common was this?

I looked into the subject and I couldn't find any indication that there were any slave rebellions in the United States during the civil war. The last one was John Brown's Raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859 and that one quite notably didn't actually attract any slaves to its banner.

Now what was common and mentioned Vastronia was the desertion of slave labour units when Union forces arrived. Given the brutality of Confederate officers towards slaves, they had basically no reason to remain loyal and, as indicated by the number of slave rebellions, quite a desire to no longer be a slave. While the Northern troops were no less racist than their Confederate counterparts, in the calculus of desert towards Union lines or stay with the Confederates, the Northerners at least wouldn't force you to load cannon under sniper fire at gunpoint (Siege of Yorktown in 1862). So it became very common in 1864 and 1865 for Confederate labor battalions to just vanish into the night when Union armies appeared. There wasn't any mystery to it. All those slaves were heading towards the boys in blue.

[Albynau]

Given a country with similar territorial waters and islands to Italy and a naval budget similar to that of Italy, I figured if I wanted to make a realistic navy I should start with what Italy has as a template and adjust as necessary.

The major stumbling block I have is that the aims of the Italian navy are considerably different from that of our fictional made up navy. The Italian navy is presumably expected to operate within the NATO framework, our fictional country has no military alliances and thus is expected to go alone. Our fictional country also has no need whatsoever for force projection beyond our territorial waters.

Another differing point is that the main security threat for our fictional nation's navy is a much larger belligerent nation that seeks to encroach upon our territorial waters and has disputed claims to our equivalent of Sicily and Sardinia. The greatest fear would be an amphibious invasion on not-Sicily or not-Sardinia.

Consequently I have a few questions and would appreciate any input:
1) Italy operates two aircraft carriers: If our nation has no need for force projection, would it be safe to say that these would be unnecessary for our fictional country? If we have aviation facilities on our islands, and the islands in question are within range of airbases of the mainland, maintaining aircraft carriers seems a bit extravagant and I'm not sure what they would offer in terms in increased capability.

2) Given the islands, we would need some sort of amphibious warfare ship. I really don't know enough about this subject aside from there's a bajillion different classification types and I don't know what we would need. LST? LPA? LSH? LSD? LPD? Italy operates LPDs and I was just planning on adopting the same given that I don't know the difference.

3) Our fictional nation has a well developed nuclear industry. Given this fact in combination with our situation, does developing nuclear-power submarines make sense? These would be SSNs, not ballistic missile submarines. If the answer is yes, would it make sense to operate both nuclear powered and diesel electric subs or just concentrate on one type?

4) Would it make sense to have the ground defense of the islands be organized under the navy via some sort of marine corps? The army's primary focus is on the other side of the country against a different potential threat, and it seems simpler to lump everything under one organization. Of course, I don't know any better.

Thank you guys in advance.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Given a country with similar territorial waters and islands to Italy and a naval budget similar to that of Italy, I figured if I wanted to make a realistic navy I should start with what Italy has as a template and adjust as necessary.

The major stumbling block I have is that the aims of the Italian navy are considerably different from that of our fictional made up navy. The Italian navy is presumably expected to operate within the NATO framework, our fictional country has no military alliances and thus is expected to go alone. Our fictional country also has no need whatsoever for force projection beyond our territorial waters.

Another differing point is that the main security threat for our fictional nation's navy is a much larger belligerent nation that seeks to encroach upon our territorial waters and has disputed claims to our equivalent of Sicily and Sardinia. The greatest fear would be an amphibious invasion on not-Sicily or not-Sardinia.

Consequently I have a few questions and would appreciate any input:
1) Italy operates two aircraft carriers: If our nation has no need for force projection, would it be safe to say that these would be unnecessary for our fictional country? If we have aviation facilities on our islands, and the islands in question are within range of airbases of the mainland, maintaining aircraft carriers seems a bit extravagant and I'm not sure what they would offer in terms in increased capability.

2) Given the islands, we would need some sort of amphibious warfare ship. I really don't know enough about this subject aside from there's a bajillion different classification types and I don't know what we would need. LST? LPA? LSH? LSD? LPD? Italy operates LPDs and I was just planning on adopting the same given that I don't know the difference.

Thank you guys in advance.

3) Our fictional nation has a well developed nuclear industry. Given this fact in combination with our situation, does developing nuclear-power submarines make sense? These would be SSNs, not ballistic missile submarines. If the answer is yes, would it make sense to operate both nuclear powered and diesel electric subs or just concentrate on one type?

4) Would it make sense to have the ground defense of the islands be organized under the navy via some sort of marine corps? The army's primary focus is on the other side of the country against a different potential threat, and it seems simpler to lump everything under one organization. Of course, I don't know any better.

Step 1. Determine the unique strategic requirements of your nation. That will heavily impact what sort of fleet you build.
Step 2. Determine the political limitations of your nation. This will also impact what sort of fleet you build.
History actually has an excellent example in the form of the United States Navy of the late 19th Century. The US Navy was tasked with coast defense and commerce raiding while being equipped with ironclad warships left over from the Civil War, a handful of mediocre protected cruisers, and some strange one offs like the Vesuvius. Much of that was because Congress wasn't interested in paying for the fleet that the US Navy needed to do the job that it was assigned. It wouldn't be until the 1890s that the US Navy started to build proper battleships.
Step 3. Determine the capabilities of regional rivals. This will be a driving force in the development of your forces in general.
Step 4. Determine your economic limitations. Ships, weapons, personnel, bases, planes. All of these things cost money to develop, produce, maintain, and operate. It doesn't matter what your rivals have or how determined your politicians are if you simply cannot pay for it.

[Hinachi]

1) Italy operates two aircraft carriers: If our nation has no need for force projection, would it be safe to say that these would be unnecessary for our fictional country?

Yes.

2) Given the islands, we would need some sort of amphibious warfare ship. I really don't know enough about this subject aside from there's a bajillion different classification types and I don't know what we would need. LST? LPA? LSH? LSD? LPD? Italy operates LPDs and I was just planning on adopting the same given that I don't know the difference.

What amphibious warfare ships you would use depends on what you need them to do - i.e. do they need to operate landing craft/amphibious vehicles, or helicopters?

Generally a 'D' in the classification stands for 'dock' indicating a well deck to operate landing craft/amphibious vehicles, a 'P' stands for 'platform' indicating a flight deck, and a 'H' stands for 'helicopter' indicating a full-length flight deck.

3) Our fictional nation has a well developed nuclear industry. Given this fact in combination with our situation, does developing nuclear-power submarines make sense? These would be SSNs, not ballistic missile submarines. If the answer is yes, would it make sense to operate both nuclear powered and diesel electric subs or just concentrate on one type?

Marine nuclear propulsion is a logical outgrowth of the nuclear industry - if there is a customer for it. The Italian naval budget can't afford nuclear propulsion, though, so it would make more sense to just field more SSKs.

4) Would it make sense to have the ground defense of the islands be organized under the navy via some sort of marine corps? The army's primary focus is on the other side of the country against a different potential threat, and it seems simpler to lump everything under one organization. Of course, I don't know any better.

Yes, Korea and Taiwan do this.

[Immoren]

4) Would it make sense to have the ground defense of the islands be organized under the navy via some sort of marine corps? The army's primary focus is on the other side of the country against a different potential threat, and it seems simpler to lump everything under one organization. Of course, I don't know any better.

National waters divided into Naval Zones/districts/commands that include both ship formation and coastal troops and artillery. Without uppity marine corps. *nods*

[Theodosiya]

Could a 23th century space army use what is basically a bastardized US BCT as its building block?

1x HQ Company
3x Infantry/Armored Bat
1x Armored/Infantry Bat
1x Anti Tank Bat
1x Anti Air Bat
1x Reconnaissance Bat
1x Combat Engineering Bat
1x Brigade Support Bat

[The Akasha Colony]

1) Italy operates two aircraft carriers: If our nation has no need for force projection, would it be safe to say that these would be unnecessary for our fictional country? If we have aviation facilities on our islands, and the islands in question are within range of airbases of the mainland, maintaining aircraft carriers seems a bit extravagant and I'm not sure what they would offer in terms in increased capability.

Maybe. Maybe not. Are you and your opponents also confined to a small sea like the Mediterranean? Carriers aren't just for force projection into hostile territories; Japan operates a number of carriers focused on anti-submarine operations to extend the reach of its ASW network. If you are entirely confined to a small sea this may not matter. If you are not, then there is obvious value in being able to hunt enemy submarines at extended ranges. South Korea also operates helicopter-focused amphibious warfare ships. Both countries are heavily dependent on maritime commerce and for that reason need to maintain safe sea routes.

Japan and South Korea may be more analogous to your situation as they are/were threatened by much larger powers and while they expected assistance from the United States, were not integrated into a large NATO-like command structure and have not really pivoted to the kind of peacekeeping expeditionary work that NATO militaries have undertaken in the last few decades.

2) Given the islands, we would need some sort of amphibious warfare ship. I really don't know enough about this subject aside from there's a bajillion different classification types and I don't know what we would need. LST? LPA? LSH? LSD? LPD? Italy operates LPDs and I was just planning on adopting the same given that I don't know the difference.

Most likely, a handful of larger amphibious docks plus a handful of lighter utility landing craft. These are the most cost-efficient ways of delivering combat troops if you need to reinforce your islands. However, the functional differences between most larger types of amphibious transport are disappearing, as almost all of them can service both landing craft and helicopters and would operate both in a landing operation. You are probably looking at a ship in the 10,000-15,000 tonne range that can operate helicopters, carry vehicles, and land them via landing craft probably launched from a well deck.

3) Our fictional nation has a well developed nuclear industry. Given this fact in combination with our situation, does developing nuclear-power submarines make sense? These would be SSNs, not ballistic missile submarines. If the answer is yes, would it make sense to operate both nuclear powered and diesel electric subs or just concentrate on one type?

This is related to the above question: do you expect to engage in a large ocean, or purely within a confined sea? Diesel-electric boats are excellent ambushers in confined waters but have limited effectiveness in large oceans. Conversely, the capabilities of a nuclear submarine are somewhat wasted in confined waters and the larger size often makes them less maneuverable in the littorals.

4) Would it make sense to have the ground defense of the islands be organized under the navy via some sort of marine corps? The army's primary focus is on the other side of the country against a different potential threat, and it seems simpler to lump everything under one organization. Of course, I don't know any better.

It doesn't make a difference either way. One presumes that within a given theater, all branches will report to a designated theater commander. If there is too much political infighting or factionalism to allow this, you probably have bigger problems to deal with.

[Austrasien]

Could a 23th century space army use what is basically a bastardized US BCT as its building block?

1x HQ Company
3x Infantry/Armored Bat
1x Armored/Infantry Bat
1x Anti Tank Bat
1x Anti Air Bat
1x Reconnaissance Bat
1x Combat Engineering Bat
1x Brigade Support Bat

SOF teams and predator drones would be a more plausible model. But the predator drones are solar devastators. Since it is very easy to drop something from orbit it seems logical that virtually all fire support will be delivered from orbit and as there is a direct line of sight from space to ground this will be closer to smart bomb plinking than artillery bombardments.

The likely role for ground forces would be to serve as the whiskers of the spacecraft, probing into places which cannot be observed directly from orbit to both seek targets and elicit responses. So they can be exploded. Again, very much like modern SOF. Since the problem of getting a lot of mass into space has also by necessity been solved the movement of ground forces and supplies is likely to be through space as well, which renders most of the terrain-related considerations of conventional ground forces moot except as they might pertain to an invidivual tactical engagement. Like clearing a particular building which is otherwise important.

Since it is very, very hard to hide from the sky (have you seen it? It is everywhere!) surviving on the spacewar battlefield will be very unpleasant bordering on impossible unless you are underground/underwater. The only robust way really is to avoid being recognized as a valid target in the first place. Assuming the Solar Devastators care about the "valid target" distinction...

So

But with more future.

SOCOM actually figured this all out they were just a century or so too early.

[Theodosiya]

Could a 23th century space army use what is basically a bastardized US BCT as its building block?

1x HQ Company
3x Infantry/Armored Bat
1x Armored/Infantry Bat
1x Anti Tank Bat
1x Anti Air Bat
1x Reconnaissance Bat
1x Combat Engineering Bat
1x Brigade Support Bat

SOF teams and predator drones would be a more plausible model. But the predator drones are solar devastators. Since it is very easy to drop something from orbit it seems logical that virtually all fire support will be delivered from orbit and as there is a direct line of sight from space to ground this will be closer to smart bomb plinking than artillery bombardments.

The likely role for ground forces would be to serve as the whiskers of the spacecraft, probing into places which cannot be observed directly from orbit to both seek targets and elicit responses. So they can be exploded. Again, very much like modern SOF. Since the problem of getting a lot of mass into space has also by necessity been solved the movement of ground forces and supplies is likely to be through space as well, which renders most of the terrain-related considerations of conventional ground forces moot except as they might pertain to an invidivual tactical engagement. Like clearing a particular building which is otherwise important.

Since it is very, very hard to hide from the sky (have you seen it? It is everywhere!) surviving on the spacewar battlefield will be very unpleasant bordering on impossible unless you are underground/underwater. The only robust way really is to avoid being recognized as a valid target in the first place. Assuming the Solar Devastators care about the "valid target" distinction...

So

But with more future.

SOCOM actually figured this all out they were just a century or so too early.

So, no mass battles involving tanks and IFVs and APCs and infantry? It would be more Spess Mehreens, Steel Rehn and exterminatus than WW1 + WW2 + Cold War and 21st Century warfare?

[Triplebaconation]

It's an impossibly vague question. "23rd Century" can mean anything from The Expanse to Aliens to Star Trek.

Ground forces should be tailored to the setting. The best thought-out example of a planetary invasion force I've seen is the Xing Cheng Drop Brigade from Attack Vector: Tactical. In the game's setting, shipping capacity is limited and heavy lift to orbit is accomplished by laser launch installations. These double as air defenses so you can't land on top on them. You can't blow them up because then you have a one way trip to the surface.

The Drop Brigade is a highly mobile force, mostly wheeled, with lots of engineering and logistics support, designed to land outside the range of the lasers and outmaneuver local forces. Using it requires the vast majority of the nation's civilian shipping.

There's an extremely detailed article in Attack Vector: Nexus Journal #1 (#1 of 1) which is a good model for building science fiction ground forces and justifying their characteristics in terms of the setting.

[Theodosiya]

It's an impossibly vague question. "23rd Century" can mean anything from The Expanse to Aliens to Star Trek.

Ground forces should be tailored to the setting. The best thought-out example of a planetary invasion force I've seen is the Xing Cheng Drop Brigade from Attack Vector: Tactical. In the game's setting, shipping capacity is limited and heavy lift to orbit is accomplished by laser launch installations. These double as air defenses so you can't land on top on them. You can't blow them up because then you have a one way trip to the surface.

The Drop Brigade is a highly mobile force, mostly wheeled, with lots of engineering and logistics support, designed to land outside the range of the lasers and outmaneuver local forces. Using it requires the vast majority of the nation's civilian shipping.

There's an extremely detailed article in Attack Vector: Nexus Journal #1 (#1 of 1) which is a good model for building science fiction ground forces and justifying their characteristics in terms of the setting.

Hmm. How about something like Star Trek and Star Wars? Transportation done by shuttles and smaller spacecrafts that could safely lift off from the ground (less affected by gravity than the bigger ones). Technically mass drops are possible, and maybe there's space for mass battles.

[Triplebaconation]

Then the only correct answer is "whatever." There are plenty of shitty military sf books you can read for ideas.

[Gallia-]

I just ended up having little guys with jetpacks and rocket rifles (or maybe they were railguns or lasers blasters [pew pew] IDK) jump around all the time, in skirts, and blast nuclear missiles at things that space battleships would have trouble seeing. Things that the battleships could see would just get liquidated by big bombs. There was an APC/air defense vehicle and a tank/howitzer/artillery piece thing but it was mostly for capturing very important infrastructures without getting nuked by the jetpack guys' nuclear rockets.

Jetpack men could just skirt around on the surface of small bodies (asteroids, moons, etc.) or hop a few miles on a planet to look for things for the battleships to kill that they can't really see. Like doom cave fortresses or something. Rockets were backpack carried and most guys only had 1-2 maybe, so it wasn't like a platoon of like a dozen guys could necessarily overwhelm a mechanized platoon's air defenses (lasers are hard from MEO).

But this was the 25-26th century not the 23rd. Not that I suspect it would have changed much except someone has to figure out how to drive on Mars.

[Albynau]

Maybe. Maybe not. Are you and your opponents also confined to a small sea like the Mediterranean? Carriers aren't just for force projection into hostile territories; Japan operates a number of carriers focused on anti-submarine operations to extend the reach of its ASW network. If you are entirely confined to a small sea this may not matter. If you are not, then there is obvious value in being able to hunt enemy submarines at extended ranges. South Korea also operates helicopter-focused amphibious warfare ships. Both countries are heavily dependent on maritime commerce and for that reason need to maintain safe sea routes.

Japan and South Korea may be more analogous to your situation as they are/were threatened by much larger powers and while they expected assistance from the United States, were not integrated into a large NATO-like command structure and have not really pivoted to the kind of peacekeeping expeditionary work that NATO militaries have undertaken in the last few decades.

This is related to the above question: do you expect to engage in a large ocean, or purely within a confined sea? Diesel-electric boats are excellent ambushers in confined waters but have limited effectiveness in large oceans. Conversely, the capabilities of a nuclear submarine are somewhat wasted in confined waters and the larger size often makes them less maneuverable in the littorals.

I was originally going to use South Korea and Japan as a template to start with, but they have military budgets roughly 1.5x times what my country has to work with and I wasn't sure how well downscaling from what they had would work. South Korea has one helicopter carrier, I'm not sure what 2/3rds of a helicopter carrier would look like.

On that note, what's the difference between a helicopter carrier and an amphibious transport that can carry helicopters? Can one vessel perform both roles (though probably not at the same time)?

The other problem I'm having in understanding at what point a small confined body of water turns into an ocean. I understand diesels operate better in smaller bodies of water, but is the Mediterranean considered a small body of water? For example, can diesel subs operating out of Rome run a patrol effectively around the Suez Canal or Gibraltar or the Dardanelles? That would be about the limit of what our country would want to operate.

Thank you.

[The Akasha Colony]

I was originally going to use South Korea and Japan as a template to start with, but they have military budgets roughly 1.5x times what my country has to work with and I wasn't sure how well downscaling from what they had would work. South Korea has one helicopter carrier, I'm not sure what 2/3rds of a helicopter carrier would look like.

Then you don't scale down the helicopter carrier. Smaller navies don't necessarily have smaller ships. Indeed, both South Korea and Japan's variants of the USN's Arleigh Burke are bigger than the original. The USN just operates a lot more of them.

You're already talking about dropping Italy's carriers, which would free up substantial amounts of money anyway.

On that note, what's the difference between a helicopter carrier and an amphibious transport that can carry helicopters? Can one vessel perform both roles (though probably not at the same time)?

It is usually some combination of a well deck or other provision for handling landing craft and space for a large troop contingent, possibly with their vehicles if a well deck is also available to land them. Exactly which of these features needs to be present to classify a ship as an amphibious assault ship is nebulous because there is no universal legal definition for warship types. Navies don't design toward some god-given definition of what an amphibious assault ship or helicopter carrier should be, they design toward what role(s) they need filled. This is why large multi-purpose ships like Juan Carlos are popular among mid-tier navies: they can fill a lot of potential roles in a single hull, regardless of whether you call them a carrier or an amphibious transport.

An assault ship like Dokdo or any of the Wasps is perfectly capable of operating as both a helicopter carrier and amphibious transport, because an amphibious assault will require both helicopters and landing craft at the same time. Obviously, while conducting an actual amphibious assault, an amphibious transport's helicopters will probably be too busy ferrying troops/supplies ashore to conduct ASW patrols, but there's no reason it cannot otherwise operate ASW helicopters during other periods aside from maybe reducing space for general purpose transport helicopters. There are ways to deal with this though.

The other problem I'm having in understanding at what point a small confined body of water turns into an ocean. I understand diesels operate better in smaller bodies of water, but is the Mediterranean considered a small body of water?

Yes.

For example, can diesel subs operating out of Rome run a patrol effectively around the Suez Canal or Gibraltar or the Dardanelles? That would be about the limit of what our country would want to operate.

Easily.

Range is not a problem for diesel-electric submarines. Even WWII diesel boats could easily operate across oceans. The USN had no serious problem interdicting Japan and the Kriegsmarine operated U-boats off the East Coast of the US.

The problem is engaging targets. A submerged diesel boat is slower than practically anything it might want to engage. Diesel boats are generally stuck operating at single-digit knots while underwater, as traveling any faster would drain their batteries in a matter of hours, forcing them to surface or run their engines if they have an AIP system. And even at full speed, they can't catch a warship at a sprint (though maybe they'd catch a slower merchant convoy). This means that a diesel submarine is basically a very slightly mobile mine: if a target happens to wander into the range of its torpedoes, then it'll probably be sunk but if it never comes that close, there's little the submarine can do to chase it down. In a confined sea like the Mediterranean, Baltic, or North Sea, the chance of a given ship wandering into range of a diesel submarine is higher because there are lots of strategic chokepoints that ships must traverse to get anywhere within the region.

But if we're talking about a whole ocean, then the chance of a surface ship running across a diesel submarine becomes extremely low. Yes, you can focus your submarines around key areas, but the enemy will just avoid those areas with their valuable ships until they've swept it with their ASW elements. And if the enemy's ships are moving at very high speeds, the effective torpedo range is reduced because the torpedoes will waste more energy fighting drag and catching up to the target. Nuclear submarines have value here because they can move at very high speeds (generally higher than surface ships, if needed) so they can actually sprint ahead to intercept a target (they can't really chase a target because high-speed movement deafens the sonar). If your intelligence locates an enemy carrier group moving across the Pacific from Hawaii to the Sea of Okhotsk, a nuclear submarine can sprint into position ahead of that group, then wait to launch an ambush once it passes nearby. Thus, a few dozen nuclear submarines can more effectively cover a wide area than a fleet of hundreds of diesel boats because they have the speed to get where they need to be, rather than just hope they were already in the right position.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

SOF teams and predator drones would be a more plausible model. But the predator drones are solar devastators. Since it is very easy to drop something from orbit it seems logical that virtually all fire support will be delivered from orbit and as there is a direct line of sight from space to ground this will be closer to smart bomb plinking than artillery bombardments.

The likely role for ground forces would be to serve as the whiskers of the spacecraft, probing into places which cannot be observed directly from orbit to both seek targets and elicit responses. So they can be exploded. Again, very much like modern SOF. Since the problem of getting a lot of mass into space has also by necessity been solved the movement of ground forces and supplies is likely to be through space as well, which renders most of the terrain-related considerations of conventional ground forces moot except as they might pertain to an invidivual tactical engagement. Like clearing a particular building which is otherwise important.

Since it is very, very hard to hide from the sky (have you seen it? It is everywhere!) surviving on the spacewar battlefield will be very unpleasant bordering on impossible unless you are underground/underwater. The only robust way really is to avoid being recognized as a valid target in the first place. Assuming the Solar Devastators care about the "valid target" distinction...

So

But with more future.

SOCOM actually figured this all out they were just a century or so too early.

So, no mass battles involving tanks and IFVs and APCs and infantry? It would be more Spess Mehreens, Steel Rehn and exterminatus than WW1 + WW2 + Cold War and 21st Century warfare?

lmfao

can you think about something outside of a trope?

[United Earthlings]

Given a country with similar territorial waters and islands to Italy and a naval budget similar to that of Italy, I figured if I wanted to make a realistic navy I should start with what Italy has as a template and adjust as necessary.

The major stumbling block I have is that the aims of the Italian navy are considerably different from that of our fictional made up navy. The Italian navy is presumably expected to operate within the NATO framework, our fictional country has no military alliances and thus is expected to go alone. Our fictional country also has no need whatsoever for force projection beyond our territorial waters.

Another differing point is that the main security threat for our fictional nation's navy is a much larger belligerent nation that seeks to encroach upon our territorial waters and has disputed claims to our equivalent of Sicily and Sardinia. The greatest fear would be an amphibious invasion on not-Sicily or not-Sardinia.

Consequently I have a few questions and would appreciate any input:
1) Italy operates two aircraft carriers: If our nation has no need for force projection, would it be safe to say that these would be unnecessary for our fictional country? If we have aviation facilities on our islands, and the islands in question are within range of airbases of the mainland, maintaining aircraft carriers seems a bit extravagant and I'm not sure what they would offer in terms in increased capability.

Aircraft Carriers are never unnecessary, however seeing as you desire to squeeze out every penny worth of value, having both Carriers be capable of performing amphibious assault as either their primary or secondary mission would probably not be an unwise investment. In addition, instead of replacing the Giuseppe Garibaldi VTOL carrier with an even larger carrier/landing helicopter dock you could go for something smaller like the French Mistral Class Landing Platform Helicopter {LPH}. Ideally though, having two Cavour class type vessels in service would in my mind be the best way to go with one active and one placed in reserve.

2) Given the islands, we would need some sort of amphibious warfare ship. I really don't know enough about this subject aside from there's a bajillion different classification types and I don't know what we would need. LST? LPA? LSH? LSD? LPD? Italy operates LPDs and I was just planning on adopting the same given that I don't know the difference.

Since the Italian Navy is planning on replacing their San Giorgio class Landing Platform Docks {LPDs} in the future with an even larger class of LPDs, a capability you’ve stated you don’t need. You could replace your current LPD class if similar to what the current Italian Navy is using with a more modern LPD class that is similar in displacement and dimensions. Or this is just a thought; procure a larger number of smaller assault/transport vessels. To start off with, similar vessels to what the Italian Navy already operates like the Gorgona-class, just of course a more modern version of them. There’s also High Speed Transports like the U.S. Navy Spearhead Class, various types of Logistics Support Vessels like the General Frank S. Besson Class and the Bacolod City Class. Finally, you could just procure a whole lot more Landing Craft Utility (LCUs) and Landing Craft Mechanized (LCMs).

3) Our fictional nation has a well developed nuclear industry. Given this fact in combination with our situation, does developing nuclear-power submarines make sense? These would be SSNs, not ballistic missile submarines. If the answer is yes, would it make sense to operate both nuclear powered and diesel electric subs or just concentrate on one type?

Are these submarines going to operate on a regular basis in the distance oceans or more in the confined littoral waters of your nation’s local sea? If the former, procuring some SSNs wouldn’t be a bad idea, costly, but a wise investment. If the latter, focusing on a similar number as the Italian Navy currently actually has or slightly more diesel-electrics’ would be the way to go.

4) Would it make sense to have the ground defense of the islands be organized under the navy via some sort of marine corps? The army's primary focus is on the other side of the country against a different potential threat, and it seems simpler to lump everything under one organization. Of course, I don't know any better.

It could work, but having some army troops around also isn’t a bad idea, as it would encourage your forces to organize joint exercises so their better able to work and coordinate their operations together should it ever come to war. Coordination among the various branches of your armed forces is never a bad thing. You could do worse than having a joint plan of action.

---

In closing, though not specifically mention, since power projection is not a great priority, increasing the number of OPVs like the planned Paolo Thaon di Revel Class capable of engaging other vessels with missiles wouldn’t be a bad investment. Also, maybe some type of small AOE/Replenishment ship or two or more to support these craft and the submarines like what the Germans have historically with the Elbe Class in lieu of the 27,000 ton Vulcano-class the Italians are actually planning on building.

[Theodosiya]

So, no mass battles involving tanks and IFVs and APCs and infantry? It would be more Spess Mehreens, Steel Rehn and exterminatus than WW1 + WW2 + Cold War and 21st Century warfare?

lmfao

can you think about something outside of a trope?

Well, in short, simple and clear term. Drop/land/infiltrate soldier when orbital bombardment is unnecessary. Which means no APC, no IFV, no Tanks. Maybe even no motorized vehicles too. Just soldiers in power armor.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Could a 23th century space army use what is basically a bastardized US BCT as its building block?

1x HQ Company
3x Infantry/Armored Bat
1x Armored/Infantry Bat
1x Anti Tank Bat
1x Anti Air Bat
1x Reconnaissance Bat
1x Combat Engineering Bat
1x Brigade Support Bat

It depends. The Brigade Combat Team was adopted to meet US operational requirements of positioning effective combat forces within short timeframes by air or ship. The basic idea behind the BCT, oversimplified, is to be able to "plug and play" units under headquarters establishments to meet specific theater requirements. For one operation, 1st ID might need more Armored Brigades so they'll get 3 or 4 ABCTs plugged into their structure. For the next operation, they might lose most or all of those ABCTs, with IBCTs or SBCTs replacing them, depending on the specific mission assigned to the division. In any event, the BCT is supposed to be a modular unit that can be rapidly reassigned and redeployed to meet the global commitments of the United States.

You may find that won't be functional in your 23rd century. If it's something like the Expanse, a BCT with tanks and armored vehicles would be too heavy to lift into orbit, so any orbitally dropped troops would be light infantry, outfitted in powered armor and making use of light vehicles. Alternatively, if it is like Star Trek, then the use of teleportation technology renders vehicles unnecessary as you can quite literally teleport troops into key positions. On the other hand, if it is like Aliens, then you just might be able to justify a Brigade Combat Team of a similar armament scheme to a modern one. It all comes down to what sort of technology your future military is making use of and how closely you are adhering to real physics.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

some guy,
Thinks the answers to all these questions is yes!
1.Can anyone dodge nukes?

2. Can one man take on 2 police forces and half an entire Army?

3. Is it realistic ban citizens of certain nations that are not even your enemy from becoming mercenaries?

4. Could a civilian teach themselves to be a one-man special forces unit?
the answer is no,
Right?
am I actually losing my mind?
Am I being gas-lighted?

[The New California Republic]

some guy,
Thinks the answers to all these questions is yes!
1.Can anyone dodge nukes?

the answer is no,
Right?
am I actually losing my mind?
Am I being gas-lighted?

"Can anyone dodge nukes?"...? Alright...? Ignoring how fucking clumsy that question is for a moment, and interpreting it rather generously so that I can actually even begin to answer it, it is certainly possible to mitigate to effects of nuclear weapons, yes.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

some guy,
Thinks the answers to all these questions is yes!
1.Can anyone dodge nukes?

the answer is no,
Right?
am I actually losing my mind?
Am I being gas-lighted?

"Can anyone dodge nukes?"...? Alright...? Ignoring how fucking clumsy that question is for a moment, and interpreting it rather generously so that I can actually even begin to answer it, it is certainly possible to mitigate to effects of nuclear weapons, yes.

I meant one person physically dodging them the way they might dodge bullets or a sword.

[The New California Republic]

"Can anyone dodge nukes?"...? Alright...? Ignoring how fucking clumsy that question is for a moment, and interpreting it rather generously so that I can actually even begin to answer it, it is certainly possible to mitigate to effects of nuclear weapons, yes.

I meant one person physically dodging them the way they might dodge bullets or a sword.

...

...I...really don't know what is happening here. It's as pointless and silly a statement as "can someone do backflips over a tank?"

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

1.Can anyone dodge nukes?

2. Can one man take on 2 police forces and half an entire Army?

3. Is it realistic ban citizens of certain nations that are not even your enemy from becoming mercenaries?

4. Could a civilian teach themselves to be a one-man special forces unit?

[The New California Republic]

I meant one person physically dodging them the way they might dodge bullets or a sword.

...

...I...really don't know what is happening here. It's as pointless and silly a statement as "can someone do backflips over a tank?"

1.Can anyone dodge nukes?

Repeating the question doesn't make it any less pointless and silly.